| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| A vulnerability was determined in Tomofun Furbo 360 and Furbo Mini. This impacts an unknown function of the component Trial Restriction Handler. This manipulation causes improper access controls. It is feasible to perform the attack on the physical device. The attack is considered to have high complexity. The exploitability is said to be difficult. The firmware versions determined to be affected are Furbo 360 up to FB0035_FW_036 and Furbo Mini up to MC0020_FW_074. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way. |
| IBM Tivoli Monitoring 6.3.0.7 through 6.3.0.7 Service Pack 21 could allow a remote attacker to traverse directories on the system. An attacker could send a specially crafted URL request containing "dot dot" sequences (/../) to view arbitrary files on the system. |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
drm/amdgpu: init return value in amdgpu_ttm_clear_buffer
Otherwise an uninitialized value can be returned if
amdgpu_res_cleared returns true for all regions.
Possibly closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/3812
(cherry picked from commit 7c62aacc3b452f73a1284198c81551035fac6d71) |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
net: switchdev: Convert blocking notification chain to a raw one
A blocking notification chain uses a read-write semaphore to protect the
integrity of the chain. The semaphore is acquired for writing when
adding / removing notifiers to / from the chain and acquired for reading
when traversing the chain and informing notifiers about an event.
In case of the blocking switchdev notification chain, recursive
notifications are possible which leads to the semaphore being acquired
twice for reading and to lockdep warnings being generated [1].
Specifically, this can happen when the bridge driver processes a
SWITCHDEV_BRPORT_UNOFFLOADED event which causes it to emit notifications
about deferred events when calling switchdev_deferred_process().
Fix this by converting the notification chain to a raw notification
chain in a similar fashion to the netdev notification chain. Protect
the chain using the RTNL mutex by acquiring it when modifying the chain.
Events are always informed under the RTNL mutex, but add an assertion in
call_switchdev_blocking_notifiers() to make sure this is not violated in
the future.
Maintain the "blocking" prefix as events are always emitted from process
context and listeners are allowed to block.
[1]:
WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
6.14.0-rc4-custom-g079270089484 #1 Not tainted
--------------------------------------------
ip/52731 is trying to acquire lock:
ffffffff850918d8 ((switchdev_blocking_notif_chain).rwsem){++++}-{4:4}, at: blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x58/0xa0
but task is already holding lock:
ffffffff850918d8 ((switchdev_blocking_notif_chain).rwsem){++++}-{4:4}, at: blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x58/0xa0
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock((switchdev_blocking_notif_chain).rwsem);
lock((switchdev_blocking_notif_chain).rwsem);
*** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
3 locks held by ip/52731:
#0: ffffffff84f795b0 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: rtnl_newlink+0x727/0x1dc0
#1: ffffffff8731f628 (&net->rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: rtnl_newlink+0x790/0x1dc0
#2: ffffffff850918d8 ((switchdev_blocking_notif_chain).rwsem){++++}-{4:4}, at: blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x58/0xa0
stack backtrace:
...
? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
? __pfx_mark_lock+0x10/0x10
? __pfx_switchdev_port_attr_set_deferred+0x10/0x10
blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x58/0xa0
switchdev_port_attr_notify.constprop.0+0xb3/0x1b0
? __pfx_switchdev_port_attr_notify.constprop.0+0x10/0x10
? mark_held_locks+0x94/0xe0
? switchdev_deferred_process+0x11a/0x340
switchdev_port_attr_set_deferred+0x27/0xd0
switchdev_deferred_process+0x164/0x340
br_switchdev_port_unoffload+0xc8/0x100 [bridge]
br_switchdev_blocking_event+0x29f/0x580 [bridge]
notifier_call_chain+0xa2/0x440
blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x6e/0xa0
switchdev_bridge_port_unoffload+0xde/0x1a0
... |
| Microsoft Windows Support Diagnostic Tool (MSDT) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability |
| A remote code execution vulnerability exists when MSDT is called using the URL protocol from a calling application such as Word. An attacker who successfully exploits this vulnerability can run arbitrary code with the privileges of the calling application. The attacker can then install programs, view, change, or delete data, or create new accounts in the context allowed by the user’s rights.
Please see the MSRC Blog Entry for important information about steps you can take to protect your system from this vulnerability. |
| Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability |
| Windows User Profile Service Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability |
| Windows Runtime Remote Code Execution Vulnerability |
| Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability |
| Windows Client Server Run-time Subsystem (CSRSS) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability |
| Windows Print Spooler Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability |
| Active Directory Domain Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability |
| Active Directory Domain Services Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability |
| Microsoft Excel Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability |
| In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
drm/amd/display: Fix out-of-bound accesses
[WHAT & HOW]
hpo_stream_to_link_encoder_mapping has size MAX_HPO_DP2_ENCODERS(=4),
but location can have size up to 6. As a result, it is necessary to
check location against MAX_HPO_DP2_ENCODERS.
Similiarly, disp_cfg_stream_location can be used as an array index which
should be 0..5, so the ASSERT's conditions should be less without equal. |
| Microsoft Exchange Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability |
| Windows Common Log File System Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability |
| We have investigated reports of a spoofing vulnerability in AppX installer that affects Microsoft Windows. Microsoft is aware of attacks that attempt to exploit this vulnerability by using specially crafted packages that include the malware family known as Emotet/Trickbot/Bazaloader.
An attacker could craft a malicious attachment to be used in phishing campaigns. The attacker would then have to convince the user to open the specially crafted attachment. Users whose accounts are configured to have fewer user rights on the system could be less impacted than users who operate with administrative user rights.
Please see the Security Updates table for the link to the updated app. Alternatively you can download and install the Installer using the links provided in the FAQ section.
Please see the Mitigations and Workaround sections for important information about steps you can take to protect your system from this vulnerability.
December 27 2023 Update:
In recent months, Microsoft Threat Intelligence has seen an increase in activity from threat actors leveraging social engineering and phishing techniques to target Windows OS users and utilizing the ms-appinstaller URI scheme.
To address this increase in activity, we have updated the App Installer to disable the ms-appinstaller protocol by default and recommend other potential mitigations.
|
| Windows Advanced Local Procedure Call (ALPC) Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability |
